Germann v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00128 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/8/2018. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UN IT ED STATE S D ISTRICT COU RT FO R T H E W E STERN D ISTRICT O F W RG IN IA RO AN O R D IW SION sEF 12 2212 JU av, M E IA N IE G .y C. UDLEM CLERK ;. DEP6e UTY CLcERK Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:17cv00128 N AN CY A.BE RRYICIILL , Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. M E M O RAN D U M O PIN ION Thissocialsecurity disability appealw aszefetzed to tlae H onorable RobertS.Ballou, UltedStatesM agisttateJudge,pr suantto28U.S.C.j6364$(1)7),fozproposedfindings offactand arecommended disposidon.Themagistratejudgeflledareportand recommendadon,recommending thatplaintiff'smotion forslxmmaryjudgmentbedenied, theCommissioner'smotionforsllmmatyjudgmentbegrantedandtheCommissioner'shnal decisionbeaffitvned.PlaintiffMelanieG.tffM elanie'llhasfiledobjectionstothereport,the Com m issionerhasresponded,and thism atterisnow zipeforthe court'sconsidezadon. 1. Melanieraised threeargtzmentson summaryjudgmentand makesthesamethzee Germann v. Berryhill Doc. 24 argumentsin herobjectionsto themagisttateJ 'udge'sreportandrecommendation.The purposeofmagistratejudgereview isto conservejudicialresources.United Statesv. 1D ue to privacy concem s,the courtadoptsthe recom m endadon ofthe Com mittee on CourtAdm inistradon and Case ManagementoftheluclicialConferenceoftheUrlitedStatestouseonlytheftrstnameandlastinidalofthecbimantin socialsecuzity opinions. Dockets.Justia.com Mid ette,478F.3d616,621(4thCir.2007).Tothatend,theobjecdonreqlèitementsetforth inRule72@)oftheFedetalRulesofCivilProcedureisdesignedtoffttaingqtheattenéonof laoth theclistrictcouztand the courtofappealsupon only thoseissuesthatrem ain in dispute afterthemagistzatejudgehasmadefindingsandrecommendations.''Lt. la(citingThomasv. Arn,474U.S.140,147-48(1985)).AnobjectingpattymustdosoTfwithsufficientspecificity soasreasonablytoalertthedistrictcourtofthett'uegroundfortheobjection.''Jd.at622. To conclude otherwise would defeat the purpose of requiring objecéons.W ewould bepetvnitdng aparty to appealany issue thatwasbefore the m agisttate judge,regardless of the nature and scope ofobjectionsmade to themagistratejudge'sreport. Either the districtcourtw ould then have to review every issue in the magisttate judge's proposed findings and recom m endations or cotlrts of appeals would be required to review issues thatthe distdctcourtneverconsidered. In either case,judicialresourceswould bewasted and the distdctcourt's effectiveness based on help from magistrate judgeswotlld be unde= ined. Id = The clistrictcourtm ustdeternnine d. tnovoanypordon ofthemagistratejudge's . reportand tecommendation towhich apzoperobjection hasbeenmade.Tfl' hedisttictcourt mayaccept,reject,ormodifytherecommended disposidon;receive filrtherevidence;or returnthemattertothemagisttatejudgewithinstructions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.729$(3);accord 28U.S.C.j636q$(1).lf,however,apartyfffmakesgeneralorconclusoryobjecdonsthatdo notdirectthecourttoaspecificerrorin themagistratejudge'sproposed fnclingsand recomm endadons,'''X novoreview isnotrequired.Di toj erov.Colvin,N o.5:13-cv- 00088-FDW -DSC,2014W L 1669806,at*1(W.D.N.C.Apr.28,2014)(quodngHoward Yellow Cabs.Inc.v.United States,987F.Supp.469,474 (W .D .N .C.1997)).fvhecourtwill 2 notcon' àidezthoseobjecdonsbytheplainéffthatatemerelyconclusoryorattempttoobject to the entirety oftheReport,withoutfocusing the court'sattention on specific errors therein.':Cam erv.Comm'rofSoc.Sec.,No.4:08cv69,2009WL 9044111,at*2 (.E.D.Va. May6,2009);seeMid ette,478F.3dat621rfsection6369$(1)doesnotcountenancea form ofgenezalizedobjecéontocovera1lissuesaddressedbythemagistratejudge;it contemplatèsthatapartfsobjectionto amagistratejudge'srepol'tbespeciûcand particularized,asthestamteditectsthedistrictcourtto review onlyzthoseportionsofthe reportorjpecf';:#proposedûndingsorrecommendadonstowhichd// #;' /ib/;J' Jmade.n,à.Such generalobjectionsfThavethesameeffectasafailureto object,orasawaiverofsuch objection.''M oonv.BW X Technolo ies,742 F.Supp.2d 827,829 (W .D.Va.2010)9seealso Thomas,474U.S.at154rfrllhestatutedoesnotrequitethejudgetoreview anissue. dq novoifno objectionsareft1ed''). Rehashingargumentsraisedbeforethemagisttatejudgedoesnotcomplywit. hthe reql'irementsetforth in theFederalRulesofCivilPtocedureto filespecihcobjecéons. lndeed,objectionsthatsimplyteiterateargumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeare considered to begeneralobjecdonsto theentiretyofthereportand recommendaéon.See Vene v.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d 841,844-45(W .D.Va.2008).AsthecourtnotedinV --e.lm-y: A llowing a litigant to obtain de novo review ofher entire case bymerelyreformattingan earlierbriefasan objecdon Tfmakles) the initialreference to the m agistrate useless.The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as bot.h the m agistrate and the distlict court perfot'm idendcal tasks.This duplicadon oftime and effortwastes judicialresourcesrather than saving them , and nm s contrary to the putposes of the M agistratesAct.''Howard (v.Sec'yofHealth & Hum an Servs.l, 932 F.2d (505,)g 509 ((6t11Cir.1991)2. 3 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plaintiffwho reiterayesherpreviously-raised argum entswillnotbe given ffthe second biteatthe apple she seeksi''instead,herre-filed briefwitlbe treated asa generalobjection,whichhasthesameeffectaswolzldafailuretoobject.ld. M elanie'sobjectionsare,inlargepart,azeiteration oftheatgumentssheraisedon slzmmaryjudgmentandazenotthetypeofspecificobjectionsrequiredbyRule72q$. However,thecourthasreviewedétnovothosepoldonsofthemagistratejudge'sreportto which Melanieobjected andfindstheAT, J'Sdecision issupported bysubstandalevidence. lI. ltisnotthe province ofa federalcourtto m ake administrativedisability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimited to determiningwhethersubstantial evidencesupportsthe Com m issioner'sconclusion thattheplnindfffailed to m eethisburden ofproving disability.SeeHa sv.Sullivan,907F.2d 1453,1456(4th Cir.1990);seealsoLaws v.Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4thCir.1966).Insodoing,thecotzrtmayneither undertakea d. qnovo review oftheCommissioner'sdecision norre-weigh theevidenceof . record.Hunterv.Sullivan,993F.2d31,34 (4th Ciz.1992).Evidenceissubstantialwhen, considering therecord asawhole,itmightbe deem ed adequate to supporta conclusion by a reasonablernind,mchardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971),orwhen itwould be suffkientto refuseadizectedverdictin ajuly ttial.Snnithv.Chater,99F.3d 635,638(4th Cir.1996).Substandalevidenceisnotafflargeorconsiderableamountofevidencey''Pierce v.Underwood,487 U.S.552,565 (1988),butismorethanamerescintillaandsomewhatless than a preponderance.Perales,402 U .S.at4019Law s,368 F.2d at642.Ifthe 4 Com m issioner'sdecision issupported by substandalevidence,itm ustbeaffi= ed.42 U .S.C. j405(g);Perales,402U.S.at401. 111.2 Melanieflrstobjectstothemagistratejudge'sconclusionthattheATJproperly considezed hezobesityand accounted forplaintiffsobesity,azguing thatTfgtjhe AT, J'S decision gaveno w eightto plaintiff'sobesityin fo= ulating theresidualf' uncdonalcapacitp'' P1.'sObj.,ECF.No.15,at9.M elaniecontendsthatherBM1of52.7impactsher degenerativejointdiseaseoftheknees,which causesincreasedpnin and limitationthan expectedfrom degeneradvejointdiseasealoneandwasunaccountedforintheRFC.P1.'s Obj.,ECF.No.15,at8-9.Shepointsto herphysicians'notesto loseweightand her testimonyaboutsitting and standing,and arguesthattheAT, J failed to considerthather extraweightincreasesherpainandfatkue.P1.'sObj.,ECF.No.15,at10-11. However,asthemagisttatejudgeaptly notes,fV ereisno requirem entin the regulationsthattheATJincludealengthyorpreciseanalysisgofobesity)in theopirlion.'' Rep.& Recomm.,ECF No.21,at5 (citingmchardsv.Astx e,No.6:11cv00017,2012W L 5465499,at*6 (W.D.Va.luly 5,2012)).Asrequiredby SocialSecut'ityRuling02-1p,the ATJevaluatedMelanie'sobesityatsteps2through 5ofthesequentialevaluadon process. TheATJ foundobesitytobeasevereimpairm ent(RA 22-23),and speciûcallynoted M elanie'stestim ony thatfTheractivitiesofdaily living wezelim ited by herobesity.. ..'' 24).Theresidualfunctionalcapacityanalysisrepeatedlyaddressed M elanie'sobesityandits effectson herkneeimpnirment.TheATJnoted thatthemedicalevidenceforherknee 2Detailed factsaboutM elarzie'sim pairmentsand m eclicaland procedtlralhistory can be foutzd irztlzereportand recommendadonandintheadministradvetransczipt(ECFNos.8,21).Assuch,theywillnotberepeatedhere. impsit-mentand obesitymostlypost-dated thelastinsured dateofMarch 31,2009.(RA 24). H enoted M elanie'srepottsofissueswith attem ptsto loseweightin herm edicalrecordsin July 2004,and thatshereported alossof11poundsin Decembez2004 butstillhad occasionalpoppingin herkneefollowingprolonged activity.(RA 25).Shehadknee replacem entsurgeryin late2005,w hich 1ed to a seriesofreportsofim pzovem entinto September2009.(RA 25).TheA1, Jnoted,ffgaqfterthedatelastinsuzed,theclnimant continued to havefew complaintsrelated toherknees,butalso remainedobese.'?(IkA 25). TheAIJcontinuedthathetBMIwas52asofJanuary2010,andthatshecomplainedof lackingafullrangeofmodon in hetkneebeginningin August2010.(. RA 25-26). W it.h respectto M elaie'sresidualf' unctionalcapacity,theATJ detetmined that M elanie'sffbone-on-boneosteoarthtidsin therightkneeand subsequenttotalknee replacement,alongwithherobestj,supportalimitation tolightworkinvolvingno kneeling,no crawling,and no clim bing ofladders,ropes,or scaffolds,and only occasionalperform ance ofotherposturalacdvities.''(RA 26 (emphasisaddedl).The ATJ expEcitlygaveweightto M elarlie'sobesityin form ulating theresidualfunctionalcapacity.A dditionally,the m edical recordson which the AT, Jreliedin evalualingMelanie'sabilitytowork regularlyreflect M elanie'sheight,weight,and body m assindex and note hezobesity. ln addition to reviewing therecord asawhole,the courtspecifically review ed each pagecitedinM elanie'sobjectionregardingherneed toloseweightorherdifficultysiGng, standing,and m aintaining a stadcposture to ascertain whetherthisevidence should have suggested to the AT, Jthatplainéffcould notperform lightworkwit.h lim itadons.Therecord citationsincludeM elanie'stestim ony thatshe sbiftsbetween standing,sitting,and lying 6 downduetodiscomfortandofyentakesbreaks.(1tA 48-50).Shealsonotedclifficulty putting on her socksand shoesdueto herobesity,and thatshe experienced pnin in hez knees.IIkA 50).Themedicalrecordsreferencedherobesity,whereaDecember13,2004 visitforthe osteoarthritisin herrightkneeatthe Roanoke O rthopaedic Centernoted an 11- pound weightloss,continued popping and catching in hezknee,occasionaleasy fatigability, and arecomm endadon thatshe ffcontinuewith herexercise and weightlossregl 'm ent.'' 775).Onlune3,2004,NancyS.Hm ey,M SN-FNP cliagnosedMelaniewith obesity, provided herwith infozm ation aboutweightm anagem entto attem ptgradualweightloss, andrecommended astructured weightlossprogram.(IIA 848).OnJune6,2003,BrentM. Johnson,M .D.tecommendedweightreduction andencouragedherto condnue* t. 11her recentweightlossofzo-pounds.IRA 784). TheALJconsidered thisinformaéon,finding obesitytobeasevereimpnitment, referencing M elanie'sattem ptsto losew eight,and nodng herdaily living acdviéeswere limitedbyherobesity.(1lA 25).Thecitedpagesofthemedicalrecordprovidepassing referencesto herobesityratherthan evidence offunctionallim itations.lticciv.A s% e,N o. 5:11CV00081,2013W L 393339,at*2 (W.D.Va.Jan.31,2013)rflnsteadofprovidingany evidenceofafuncéonallim itaéon posed by obesity,the récord evidence cited by the magisttatejudgeconsistsalmostexclusivelyofpassingreferencesto obesity....?').These referencesdo notstand in isolation,and aregenerally reflected in the m edicalassessm ent alongwithamyriad ofotherhealth issues.TheATJalso explicitlynotedsom eofthese refezencesin themedicalrecord,such asM elanie'sll-pound weightloss.(RA 25).In sum , 7 theAT, JrepeatedlyconsideredMelanie'sobesityanditseffectson herkneeimpairmentin fasllioningtheresidualfunctionalcapacity.Melanie'sobjectionisoverruled. IV . Melarzienextobjectsto themagistratejudge'sconclusion thatthe AT, Jpêopezly evaluatedherabilitytomaintainastaticwozkposmreandherneedtotakebreaks.P1.'sObj., ECF No.22,at2-3.Melanieazguesthatthe AT, Jdid notmakedetailed,function-by- function findingsasrequitedbySSR 96-8p,M asciov.Colvin,780F.3d632 (4th Cir.2015), and Monroev.Colvin,826F.3d 176(4t. h Cir.2016).Thecourtconcurswith themagistrate judge,andholdsthatsubstanéalevidencesupportsthe AI, J'sdecisionin thisregard. SSX.96-8p addressestheRFC assessment,and tequirestheALJto ffidendfythe individual'sfuncéonallim itadonsorzestricéonsand assesshisorherwork-related abilities on afunction-by-functionbasis,includingthefuncdonsglisted elsewherein the regulaéonsj.p'SSR 96-8p,1996WL 362207,at*1 guly2,1996).3The ATJisinstructed to includea narradvediscussion and cite specific m edicalfactsand nonm edicalevidence supporting hisconclusion,discusstheinclividual'sabilityto perfot. m sustnined work acévities in an orclinaryw ork setting on aregulatand continlzing basis,describe them axim um am ount ofeach wotk-related activity theindividualcan perform ,and explain how any m aterial inconsistenciesoram bigaiéesin the evidencewere considered and resolved.Id.at*7;see alsoM orlroe,826F.3d at189(emphasizing thatan ATJneedsto pzovidean explicit explanadon linkingm edicalevidencelistedin thedecision tohisultimatefindings). 3Exam plesoflisted physicalfimctionsincludea cbimant'sffability to perfot. m certqin physicaldem andsofwork acdvity, suchassitting,standing,wallring,lifting,carrpn 'g,pushing,plllling,orothezphysicalAlnctions(includingmanipuladveor posturalhlncdons,suchasreaching,handling,stoopingozcroucbing)....''20C.F.R.j416.945$). ' 8 ffrrjhe AT, J'Sfailureto conductafunction-by-function analysisdoesnotnecessnrily resultin autom aécrem and.':H um hriesv.Colvin,N o.3:15-CV-188,2015NW w9942619,at *4 (E.D.Va.Dec.31,2015),te ortandrecommendation ado ted,2016WL 356086 (E.D. Va.lan.28,2016).lnMascio,thecourtrejected aTfperserulerequitingremandwhen the ATJdoesnotperfozm an explicitfunction-by-funcéon analysis,''fincling thatTffgrqemand maybeappropriate...wherean AT, J failsto assessaclaimant'scapacityto perform televant funcéons,despite contradictoryevidencein therecord,orwhere otherinadequaciesin the ATJ'sanalysisfrustratemeaningfulreviem '':780F.3d at(citing Cichockiv.Astnze,729F.3d 172,177 (2d Cir.2013))9. qi Nelsonv.Ber lnill,No.7:15-CV-573,2017WL 782938,at+1 (W.D.Va.Feb.28,2017)(recommendingremandwherefftheAT, J'Sopitlion (left)thecoutt to guessathow hereached llisconclusionsregardingNelson'sRFC'I. ln apreviouscasebeforethiscotut,wheretheplaintiffargtzed thatan <KATJis required to m ake specihc findingsaboutwhetherhislim itationswould causehim to lie down during the day,to frequently change positionsto thepointhe cannotm aintain work acévity, and to have difficulty concentraéng and focusing due to pain,''the colzrtupheld thedecision wherethe ATJ sufficientlyexplainedwhytheplaintiff'stestimonywasdiscreditedand contained specifk analysisthatallowed form eaningfulreview.See G odfre v.Ber hill,N o. 7:16CV580,2018W L 1474087,at*4 (W.D.Va.Mar.26,2018).Othercouttsin theFourt.h Circuithaveupheld decisionswhereTftheAT, J'Snarradveperrnitsmearlingfulreview because gqhem adean implicitfindingofPlaintiffscapacityto stand andwalkand explained how gjhereached thatconclusion.''Tutnerv.Ber lnill,No.1:16CV1202,2018R 1311539,at *6-8(M.D.N.C.Mar.13,2018);seealsoArmstron v.Colvin,No.1:14CV346,2015W L 9 6738723,at*3-6(M .D.N.C.Nov.4,2015)(findingsubstandalevidencesupported AT, J'S decisionregardingkneeimpnitment'seffectonworkperformancewhereplaintiffobjected to lackoffunction-by-funcéon analysisbutATJprovided detailednarrativeofmedical evidenceand explainedreasoning forcredibility deternninationl;Harrisonv.Colvin,No. 1:10-CV-18,2013W L 1661096,at*2 (M .D.N.C.Apz.17,2013)(<fgBlyfincling. thatMs. HarrisonwascapableofperforlningEghtwork theALJimplicitly found thatshewas capableofstandingorwalkingforapproximately sixhoursin an eight-hourworkday.''). Here,themagistratejudgecitedtherequirementsofSSR 96-813,and describedhow theAT, JsatisfiedthosereqllirementswhenanalyzingMelanie'sphysicallimitadons: In hisopinion,the AT, J recognized M elaniel'stestimony atthe hearing regarding her continued pain following herknee surgery and herlimited abilityto stand.R.24.However,the AT, J noted the m edical evidence showing that she had a notm al gait, without the use of an assistive device, following her knee teplacem ent surgery, and reported ftttle to no pain in her knet.''R.25-26.A record from M elanieq'sot-fhopedistnotes that,six w eeks following her knee sutgery,she isw alking with no assisdve device and com plaining of ffnninim alpqin''except after therapy.R.763.At M elarliel's follow up appointm ents one year and three years post surgery,she reported little or no pain and had normal gait. R. 758, 746. Likewise, tlae ATJ em phasized that ffno treadng or exanlirting sotuce suggested disability dtlring the relevant period.'' J. d. The ATJ wrote, . TfrM elanie'sjgenerallynormalgaitand otherwisenomnalphysical exarninaéons indicate that she was capable of the standing, walking,andliftingrequizedforlightexerdonjobs.''. 1. d=ln sum, the AT, J'Sdecision includesthenarrativediscussion required by SSR 96-8p, and contains sufficient info= ation to .allow m eaningfulreview.Unlike the AIJ in M ascio,the AT, J in this case did not fail to considez conflicdng m edical evidence. Futthez,the courtis Tfnot left to guess about how the ATJ arrived atllisconclusions''becausetheAT, J'sfindingsinclude a detailed surrtmary of M elanieq's medicalrecords, M elanieq's hearingtestim ony andtheAI, J'sconclusions. 10 Rep.& Recomm.,ECF No.21,at8-9.TheAT. J'sdecision itselr andnotonlythemagistzute judge'sdecision,includesthenarzativediscussionrequiredbySSR 96-8p,and contains sufficientinfozmation to allow meaningfulreview oftheRFC.(1lA 23-26). TheAT, J did notfailto considerconflictingmedicalevidence,likein M ascio,andclid notpose hypotheticalquestionsto thevocationalexpertthatexcluded som e ofM elai e's ftznctionallim itations,likeinM onroe.TheATJnotedM elanie'sstatementsaboutherneed to walk orliedown aftersitting athezwozk station,butultim ately found they lacked credibilityin partbecauseno treating physician orexam ining sourcesuggested disability dtzringtherelevantpeziod.(RA 24-26,48-50).TheALJalsoaskedthevocadonalexpert aboutsllifting between sitdng and stancling;although M elaniecontendsthatthehypothedcal wasffbased on the prernise''thatshe could rem ain in placeratherthan leave herwork station towalk andrest,the AT, Jdidnotaccepthertestimonyasfullycredibleandthereforedid not 4 need to addresshercontinued presenceatthework station.IRA 48-50,56)9. g-f.Cookv. Colvin,No.2:13-cv-30155,2015K 430880,at*17(S.D.W .Va.Jan.30,2015)rTrllheATJ need notcom menton everypieceofevidencein thetecord.'). Thecouttdisagrees,thetefore,withMelanie'sazgumentthattheA1, Jfailed to builda logicalbridgebetween the evidence and hisconclusion thatM elanie'sphysicallim itaéons limitherto standing/walkingabout6hotlrsand sitdngabout6hoursin an 8-houtworkday. (1lA 23).To theextentthe A1, Jcan befaultedfornotengagingin thedetailed,ftmction-byfunction analysisM elanie desires,the courtdoesnothnd rem and necessary.AstheFotuth Circtzitm ade clearin M ascio and M onroe,the failureto conducta function-by-function analysisdoesnotrequiterem and in everycase.Instead,rem and istheappropriaterem edy wheretheATJfailedtoassesstelevantfunctionsorwhereffotherinadequacies''inthe opinion TKfrtzstratemeaningfulreviem''Mascio,780F.3dat636 (citing Cichocki,729F.3d.at 177);seealso Monroe,826F.3d at188.Neitherofthesesittzationsispresenthere.TheAI, J discussed,in detail,M elanie'srelevantphysicalfuncdons,sum m arized theperénentm edical zecords,and provided athorough explanaéon forhow hew eighed the m edicalopinions. Assuch,themagistratejudgewascorrecttofindthattheAT, Jproperlyanalyzed Melanie'sphysicallimitationsand thatsubstantialevidencesupported the AT, J'Sconclusions. Hicldin-lonesv.Colvin,No.3:14-CV-584,2015W L 8958542,at*6(W.D.N.C.Dec.15, 2015)(findingremandunnecessarywhezetheAI, J'snarrativeprovided Vfampleinsightinto hisdecisionalprocess');Htuaa hriesv.Colvin,No.3:15-CV-188,2015R 9942619,at*4 (E.D.Va.Dèc.31,2015),re ortandzecommendadoilado ted,2016WL 356086 (E.D.Va. Jan.28,2016)(findingremand unnecessarywheretheATJaddressed ffrelevantwork-related functions''andprovidedaffsufficientbasisto review lnisconclusions''in theRFC analysis). Accordingly,Melanie'sobjectionstotheAIJ'sftzncdon-by-funcéonanalysisareoverruled. V. Finally,Melarzieobjectsgçnerallyto themagist/atejudge'sdeterminaéon thatthe AI, J'scredibilityfindingissupportedby substantialevidence.Melalepointstocertain m edicalevidence thatshe arguesdem onsttatesherinability to perfozm thew ork levelstated in tlaeAT, J'sdecision.ShenotesthattheATJand themagistratejudge'fignored theevidence afterplaintiff'skneereplacem entsurgery thtough thedatelastinsured doclxm enéng plainéff'scontinued complaintsofpain in hetkneesand lowerlegsand theobjecdve m edicalevidenceofrecord docum enting osteoarthriésin both kneesand lowerlegsand continued tightnessaround thepatella.''P1.'sObj.,ECF No.22,at4. In reviewingMelanie'sclnim zegardingtheALJ'Scredibilitydeterminadon,thecourt notesattheoutsetthatbecausethe AIJ ffhadtheoppormnityto observethedemeanorand todeternùnethecredibilityoftheclnimant,theAT, J'sobservadonsconcerningthese questionsaretobegiven greatweight.''Sllivel v.Hecklet,739F.2d 987,989 (4th Cir.198$. CredibilitydeterminationsareemphaticallytheprovinceoftheATJ,notthecourt,and courtsnorm ally should notinterferewith these deternlinations.See e..,Chafin v.Shalala, No.92-1847,1993WL 329980,at*2 (4th Cir.Aug.31,1993)@erctuiam)(cidngHa sv. Sullivan,907F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cir.1990)andThom asv.Celebrezze,331F.2d541,543 (4thCir.1964));M elvinv.Asttue,6:06CV 00032,2007WL 1960600,at*1(W .D.Va.July5, 2007)(citingHatcherv.Sec' ofHea1th & Human Servs.,898F.2d 21,23 (4th Cir.1989)). Here,the AI, Jexhaustively consideredthemedicalevidencein hisdecision,aswellas M elanie'sallegaéonsastoherfunctionalcapacitp TheALJreviewedM elanie'strea% ent records,includingthosefollowingherlune2005kneereplacement,and foundthattherewas lim ited evidence priorto M elartie'sdate lastinsuted regarcling funcdonallim itaéonscaused byherkneeimpairmentandobesitp IItA 24-25).TheAT, Jaddressedhow M elaniereported nninim alpain and nearly a fulltangeofm otion a few weeksafterthesurgery;reported no painwith ambuladon and had fullextension upon examination inlune20069and clnimed occasionaltightnessatound hetpatella during a no= alphysicalexanainatb n in Septem bet 2008,approximately seven monthspriorto herdatelastinstued.(RA 25).The AT, J ultim ately concluded thtM elanie'sallegationswere notfully crediblebased on hezlack of need fozan assisdve device fotam bulation,tepoztsoflittleto no pain in herknee,het normalgait,andhercaringforhergrandson priorto herdatelastinsured.IRA 26).TheATJ also found persuasive thatno treating orexamining solzrce suggested disabilityduring the relevantperiod.(RA 26). TheALJconductedapropercredibilityanalysisinthiscase.ItistheAT, J'sroleto resolveinconsistenciesbetween acllim ant'salleged im paitvnentsand hisability to work.The court'sroleisto deterrninewhetherthereissubstanéalevidence to supportthe factazal findingsoftheAT, Jandwhethertheywerereachedthroughthecorrectlegalstandard.. C -Z-Q v.Chater,76F.3d585,589(4t.hCir.1996).Here,theATJdidnotrnischaracterizethe evidenceor failto build alogicalbridgebetween the evidence and lzisconclusionsregarding M elanie'scredibility.Thecourtfindsno erzorin themagistratejudge'sconclusionthatthe AT, J'Scredibilityassessmentwasproperand supportedby substantialevidence. W . Thecourthasreviewed themagistratejudge'sreport,theobjecdonsto thereport, and theadrninistraéverecordand,in so doing,madea2:novo deternninaéon ofthose portionsofthereporttowhich Melanieproperlyobjected.Thecourtfindsthatthe magisttatejudgewascorrectinconcludingthatthereissubstantialevidenceintherecordto supportthe AI, J'sdecision.Assuch,themagisttatejudge'sreportandrecommendationwill be adopted in itsentiretp An appropriate O rderwillbe entered to thateffect. Entered: a # oa ao/Y * :. * M ichaelF.Urb ski ... - Clzief'United StatesDistrictludge .. .- ... -- .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
